-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Apparantly people who think that consensus on AfD means "70-75% with at least 10 clear non-sock/meatpuppet votes, with votes without clear reason being disregarded" aren't suitable to be admins.
AfD is evil. Long may it and the people who play there burn in wikihell.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On 10/18/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Apparantly people who think that consensus on AfD means "70-75% with at least 10 clear non-sock/meatpuppet votes, with votes without clear reason being disregarded" aren't suitable to be admins.
Admins can think what they like. Just as long as they follow policy and comunity consensus when useing admin powers. -- geni
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
geni wrote:
On 10/18/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Apparantly people who think that consensus on AfD means "70-75% with at least 10 clear non-sock/meatpuppet votes, with votes without clear reason being disregarded" aren't suitable to be admins.
Admins can think what they like. Just as long as they follow policy and comunity consensus when useing admin powers.
Apparantly community consensus doens't include putting thought into closing deletion debates; admins are supposed to count the numbers and press the magic button.
Draw circle on desk. Bang head here.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On 10/18/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Apparantly community consensus doens't include putting thought into closing deletion debates; admins are supposed to count the numbers and press the magic button.
Draw circle on desk. Bang head here.
No - the point is that, like any other "elected" position, you need to shut up about your actual opinions, recite platitudes, and kss babies. NEVER reveal your true intentions to make the world a better place, or you will be shot down.
Think about it like this - I think that AfD is a cesspool, and I have no interest in closing debates. I don't want to be attacks for making judgement calls the way that Tony is. So, to parallel your experience, if I said that I don't want to close AfD debates, I assume that people would say "he doesn't want AfD debates to ever get closed, he wants them to stay open forever". :)
I think I will join you in banging my head on the desk...as soon as I rush off and vote in your RFA - or vote a second time if I've voted already - what name should I choose for my sockpuppet [[User:Guettarda'sSocktoVoteTwiceInRFAsAndAfDs]]? :)
Ian
Guettarda wrote:
On 10/18/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Apparantly community consensus doens't include putting thought into closing deletion debates; admins are supposed to count the numbers and press the magic button.
Draw circle on desk. Bang head here.
No - the point is that, like any other "elected" position, you need to shut up about your actual opinions, recite platitudes, and kss babies. NEVER reveal your true intentions to make the world a better place, or you will be shot down.
Never question what end of the baby is presented for kissing.
Think about it like this - I think that AfD is a cesspool, and I have no interest in closing debates. I don't want to be attacks for making judgement calls the way that Tony is. So, to parallel your experience, if I said that I don't want to close AfD debates, I assume that people would say "he doesn't want AfD debates to ever get closed, he wants them to stay open forever". :)
What's wrong with keeping them open forever? If that were to happen we wouldn't need VfU, and the work would be cut in half.
Ec
On 10/18/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
What's wrong with keeping them open forever?
[[Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency]]
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 10/18/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
What's wrong with keeping them open forever?
[[Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency]]
I fail to see the connection between the principle of keeping discussions open forever, and your anti-obscenity project. Your response is a total non-sequitur.
Ec
On 10/18/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I fail to see the connection between the principle of keeping discussions open forever, and your anti-obscenity project. Your response is a total non-sequitur.
Ec
If you look at that case it caused a lot of problems. Fortunety there was a built in time limit on the process which ment that ultimetly it was self limiting. You wish to take that away. You are failing to think through the consiquences of your proposals.
-- geni
Closing an AFD debate is not just about the numbers. If I come across one where there's one reasoned vote that explains it's a copyvio or hoax while there's 30 others voting keep without such reasoning, I would still close in favor of the one explained vote, despite the numbers.
--Mgm
On 10/19/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Closing an AFD debate is not just about the numbers. If I come across one where there's one reasoned vote that explains it's a copyvio or hoax while there's 30 others voting keep without such reasoning, I would still close in favor of the one explained vote, despite the numbers.
This procedure is also supported by the deletion guidelines for administrators. We don't keep copyright infringements, no matter how many people say "keep", no matter even what fine reasons we give for keeping.
On 10/19/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
This procedure is also supported by the deletion guidelines for administrators. We don't keep copyright infringements, no matter how many people say "keep", no matter even what fine reasons we give for keeping.
This relies on people being sure if something is a copy vio or not (see: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rochester Community Schools]])
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 10/18/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I fail to see the connection between the principle of keeping discussions open forever, and your anti-obscenity project. Your response is a total non-sequitur.
If you look at that case it caused a lot of problems. Fortunety there was a built in time limit on the process which ment that ultimetly it was self limiting. You wish to take that away. You are failing to think through the consiquences of your proposals.
The problem is in letting a particular issue guide the more general policy. That is bound to create injustices in places where they are unforseen. I did personally delete the now famous lolicon image from Wiktionary, and I'm in constant debate with people who want to generate lists of unverified "naughty words". But I would not be so naïve as to blindly resist any community consensus to keep these.
At the same time I believe in perpetually open process that can change results with the times without the need for newcomers to feel left out of the decisons. If there is a general consensus that pedophilic images should be banned from the project I don't think that leaving that debate open is going to change anything; it is reasonable to expect that newbies will divide in the same ratio as established editors.
There is an unfortunate tendency in established communities to believe that what has happened in a community up to a given point in time is the best that could be. A really open Wiki community needs to leave room for new ideas, and needs to be open to changing virtually all policies. This is especially important for policies where the support for either side is marginal
Now that Wikipedia has become such a huge Wiki it is important to have decision-making become scalable.
Ec
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Perhaps this could be solved by a very specific addition (whether by consensus or Jimbo's decree) to CSD, along these lines:
Any image which, in the opinion of at least three administrators, is a real or simulated depiction of child pornography, can be speedily deleted.
Since publishing child porn (actual or drawn) poses very serious legal problems for the Wikimedia foundation, this addition would solve the problem without leaving a loophole for abusive deletions.
I don't think there is a need for a more generalised 'anti-obscenity' policy (WP:NOT censored for minors) but in a case such as this, where (quite apart from the moral objections to child porn) even accessing the image could land someone in jail as a sex offender, there is a need to deal with it regardless of censorship concerns.
Cynical
Ray Saintonge wrote:
geni wrote:
On 10/18/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I fail to see the connection between the principle of keeping discussions open forever, and your anti-obscenity project. Your response is a total non-sequitur.
If you look at that case it caused a lot of problems. Fortunety there was a built in time limit on the process which ment that ultimetly it was self limiting. You wish to take that away. You are failing to think through the consiquences of your proposals.
The problem is in letting a particular issue guide the more general policy. That is bound to create injustices in places where they are unforseen. I did personally delete the now famous lolicon image from Wiktionary, and I'm in constant debate with people who want to generate lists of unverified "naughty words". But I would not be so naïve as to blindly resist any community consensus to keep these.
At the same time I believe in perpetually open process that can change results with the times without the need for newcomers to feel left out of the decisons. If there is a general consensus that pedophilic images should be banned from the project I don't think that leaving that debate open is going to change anything; it is reasonable to expect that newbies will divide in the same ratio as established editors.
There is an unfortunate tendency in established communities to believe that what has happened in a community up to a given point in time is the best that could be. A really open Wiki community needs to leave room for new ideas, and needs to be open to changing virtually all policies. This is especially important for policies where the support for either side is marginal
Now that Wikipedia has become such a huge Wiki it is important to have decision-making become scalable.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/18/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Apparantly community consensus doens't include putting thought into closing deletion debates; admins are supposed to count the numbers and press the magic button.
Draw circle on desk. Bang head here.
Of course since doing anything otherwise would involve trusting admins beyond the bare minium needed to keep wikipedia ticking over.
-- geni
Alphax wrote:
geni wrote:
On 10/18/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Apparantly people who think that consensus on AfD means "70-75% with at least 10 clear non-sock/meatpuppet votes, with votes without clear reason being disregarded" aren't suitable to be admins.
Admins can think what they like. Just as long as they follow policy and comunity consensus when useing admin powers.
Apparantly community consensus doens't include putting thought into closing deletion debates; admins are supposed to count the numbers and press the magic button.
Draw circle on desk. Bang head here.
Have you been reading too much Dilbert?
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Alphax wrote:
Draw circle on desk. Bang head here.
Have you been reading too much Dilbert?
One can never read too much Dilbert! We should get Scott Adams interested in WP and do cartoons on the politics - Dogbert could take over AfD with an army of robotic sockpuppets, Alice has to write the PHB's vanity bio, etc.
Stan
geni wrote:
On 10/18/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Apparantly people who think that consensus on AfD means "70-75% with at least 10 clear non-sock/meatpuppet votes, with votes without clear reason being disregarded" aren't suitable to be admins.
Admins can think what they like. Just as long as they follow policy and comunity consensus when useing admin powers.
I could agree if it was clear that "community consensus" really was that, and not some catch phrase invented for the purpose of winning an argument.
Ec
On 10/18/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I could agree if it was clear that "community consensus" really was that, and not some catch phrase invented for the purpose of winning an argument.
Ec
Ok lets see how much support you can get for a policy change along the lines of "admins will be allowed greater disscression when closeing AFDs"
-- geni
On 10/18/05, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
When did maintaining the status quo qualify as a policy change?
-Snowspinner
Show me where policy says admins can go against a consensus to keep or delete.
-- geni
On Oct 18, 2005, at 3:40 PM, geni wrote:
On 10/18/05, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
When did maintaining the status quo qualify as a policy change?
-Snowspinner
Show me where policy says admins can go against a consensus to keep or delete.
That's not what they have discretion over. They have discretion to determine if a valid consensus exists.
-Snowspinner
On 10/18/05, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
That's not what they have discretion over. They have discretion to determine if a valid consensus exists.
-Snowspinner
While I could have great fun useing that one to rulelawer what ever result I wanted you know as well as I do that that is pretty much limited to decideing which votes are valid.
-- geni
Alphax wrote:
Apparantly people who think that consensus on AfD means "70-75% with at least 10 clear non-sock/meatpuppet votes, with votes without clear reason being disregarded" aren't suitable to be admins.
AfD is evil. Long may it and the people who play there burn in wikihell.
Looks like we need more admins like Ed Poor with the courage to confront that gang of fools.
Ec